Replies

That's why Microsoft software is the most targeted, not because it is popular, but because it's buggy. The obvious example is IIS vs. Apache. Apache is much more popular, yet IIS is more attacked. IIS is terrible code and has lots of bugs. It's a cracker's playground.

Except your anti-Microsoft bigotry doesn't reflect reality. Here's proof.

Comparing IIS 6.0 to Apache, we see the following statistics:

IIS 6.0 has had 3 vulnerabilities over 2003 and 2004. All 3 of which are classifed as moderately or less critical.

Apache 2.0 has had 23 vulnerabilities -- of which 5% are rated as highly critical -- and 5% remain unpatched.

So keep trying to sell your open-source-is-safer snake oil. The facts show that you are wrong.

The facts show that you're a remarkably good liar. When one looks at a small subset of the data and ignores the larger set, one can draw all kind of conclusions that have nothing to do with reality.

You and Ballmer seem to have this same problem. Maybe it's all that time under his desk?

Apache 2.0.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Not critical

Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 6 with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Moderately critical

My, my. Look at all that red ink.

But wait, it gets worse.

The vast majority of Windows web servers are not running IIS 6.0! They're still running IIS 5.x. So let's take a look at the stats there:

Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 5.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Extremely critical

And yes, Apache 2.x isn't the most used web server, it's Apache 1.3.x. So let's look at those stats:

The Secunia database currently contains 0 Secunia advisories marked as "Unpatched", which affects Apache 1.3.x.

Hey! No red ink at all!

Find a better source for your FUD. I'm on the Secunia site every day. I do security for a living, and no matter how much you and Stevie try to spin it otherwise, Microsoft routinely comes in dead last when it comes to security.

Speed-to-patch, stablity of patches, zero-day exploits, external access to or bypass of system permissions, you name it, Microsoft sucks at it.